|
|
|
02-28-2014, 01:44 PM
|
#1
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 442
|
gaps in the fx slots
Is really not possible to intentionally leave gaps between fx slots in the mixer or just moove an fx in whatever slot i want? Or i am missing something here?
|
|
|
02-28-2014, 02:43 PM
|
#2
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 129
|
I'm no JS GURU, but...
Open the FX Window, Click Add, select the FX Menu at the top and select Create new JS effect. It will open a dialog asking for a name. I tried (-------) click OK. it will then open a JS effect witth a handful of sliders in it. Click the button on the right that says edit, it will open a window with an editor window with a handful of programming lines in it. Delete everything except the top line, change the top line to give you a tool tip after the the "desc". That tag should stay, the rest is up to you, I used FX Slot Spacer. Save the New "JS" effect. Then remove the newly created effect and re add it. Note that whatever you name it will show up in the FX Slots so if you pick the name "Spacer" when it asks for a name it will have a dummy FX button in the FX slots called SPACER. Maybe want two make two like it one named (-----v-----), and the other named (-----^-----) or something along those lines. The naming part is fussy and wont accept all characters, so trial and error may be needed. Then add whatever effects to the track you want in the order you want to see them with your spacer FX in between.
Last edited by dtrud0h; 02-28-2014 at 02:49 PM.
Reason: added an image
|
|
|
02-28-2014, 06:20 PM
|
#3
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Oblivion
Posts: 10,255
|
I was just thinking of making this a feature request today... the js idea helps a bit, but you have to delete or add a spacer every time you add or delete a plugin to maintain "slot" positions, which is not practical.
We need fixed slots.
It's silly to have fx always inserted last in the chain, after your EQ for instance, and having to reorder them constantly.
If we have an EQ on every track, they should be lined up horizontally in the mixer, not in different positions depending on the number of fx on each track.
We also need and a dedicated first slot (or section) for VSTi, so that we don't bypass our sound generator on MIDI tracks when bypassing Fx. Instruments are not effects.
|
|
|
03-01-2014, 02:11 AM
|
#4
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 442
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by PooFox
I was just thinking of making this a feature request today... the js idea helps a bit, but you have to delete or add a spacer every time you add or delete a plugin to maintain "slot" positions, which is not practical.
We need fixed slots.
It's silly to have fx always inserted last in the chain, after your EQ for instance, and having to reorder them constantly.
If we have an EQ on every track, they should be lined up horizontally in the mixer, not in different positions depending on the number of fx on each track.
We also need and a dedicated first slot (or section) for VSTi, so that we don't bypass our sound generator on MIDI tracks when bypassing Fx. Instruments are not effects.
|
This is exactly my thought, i work a lot with vst instruments and can't use the global bypass, so every time i need to manually bypass each fx. It will be useful to have an fx slot dedicated to the VSTi or, more simply, add an option to exclude an fx slot to the global bypass of the track ( something like rightclick on the slot ---> 'exclude this fx slot from the global bypass').
For the gaps in the mixer fx slots really thanks to dtrud0h for its workaround, but i also think that Reaper need a more pratical implementation of this, with no limitations in the placement of plugins in the fx slots and with gaps allowed.
PooFoox shall we do an FR about these 2 things? Any other opinion?
|
|
|
03-01-2014, 06:13 AM
|
#5
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Northeast Michigan
Posts: 3,460
|
Or you could use something like MNotepad from Melda Productions, load it, right click and rename it "Spacer" or whatever. It's just a notepad so it doesn't affect the signal.
But my question is: Why would you need a spacer?
|
|
|
03-01-2014, 11:27 AM
|
#6
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Surrey, UK
Posts: 19,677
|
So that, for example, all the track EQs could be on the same row - making them easier to find (but I would like slots in the FX parameters area in the Mixer too).
__________________
DarkStar ... interesting, if true. . . . Inspired by ...
|
|
|
03-01-2014, 12:06 PM
|
#7
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 442
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by DarkStar
So that, for example, all the track EQs could be on the same row - making them easier to find (but I would like slots in the FX parameters area in the Mixer too).
|
Yes it is very useful to have eqs, comps and other standard effects in the same row, imho.
|
|
|
03-01-2014, 01:10 PM
|
#8
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Oblivion
Posts: 10,255
|
workflow is about speed and knowing what to do. every time you have to search for something because you can't get at it directly, it impedes workflow.
one shouldn't have to search every time for something like EQ. granted we can now bring up Reaq with a shortcut if it's present on the track. but what if we like another eq? we can't access it directly and it we have to browse for it every time.
the obvious solution would be shortcut access to each slot position and the ability to keep fx in specific slots. now, whatever our standard fx chain, if we stay consistent about what's in what slot we always have direct access to our most used fx, plus everything is lined up and easy to find in the mixer.
and yes the same should absolutely go for fx parameter slots.
slots should be freely chosen and not automatically organized to keep them all at the top. we're not typing papers here; we don't need everything automatically aligned.
I was toying with ideas on how to reconfigure/combine the fx chain and i/o windows some months ago and i concluded we need 3 sections in the chain with fixed slots (reorder by dragging):
Section 1 - Input Fx and VSTi.
Section 2 - Normal fx (what we have as the main fx chain now). New Fx still get inserted at the end of this section.
Section 3 - Post Fx. Anything we always want at the end of the chain.
This way we could make 2 other fx windows redundant (input fx, i/o) and could access and manage all fx related signals at once.
My more long winded description (with much ranting): http://forum.cockos.com/showthread.p...light=one+rule
Last edited by foxAsteria; 03-01-2014 at 01:15 PM.
|
|
|
03-01-2014, 01:12 PM
|
#9
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Surrey, UK
Posts: 19,677
|
^^^^
+1
Add tintable parameter and FX slots and we're good to go.
__________________
DarkStar ... interesting, if true. . . . Inspired by ...
|
|
|
03-01-2014, 01:31 PM
|
#10
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Oblivion
Posts: 10,255
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by DarkStar
Add tintable parameter and FX slots
|
yes that'd be a great idea.
|
|
|
03-04-2014, 01:26 PM
|
#11
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Poland
Posts: 46
|
That would be great if you could leave empty FX slots.
There should be also possibility to color code effects in mixer
|
|
|
03-04-2014, 03:13 PM
|
#12
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 442
|
any existing FR here to vote about this?
|
|
|
07-27-2016, 12:04 PM
|
#13
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 18
|
Its pointless to have to insert spacers on tracks in my opinion. Is there a vote for this I would like to be able to have the choice at least where I put my inserts on a track and would defiantly use this feature. Coming from Pro Tools is not an easy transition and there is many different and confusing things about reaper that would potentially attract more pro tools users I'm just saying its logical for Cockos as a business to make that transition as easy as possible no?
I guess I can use just one insert on my tracks which will be Blue Cat's Patchwork but having to use a third party VST just to insert VST's the way I want to!?!
|
|
|
05-10-2017, 11:42 AM
|
#14
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 373
|
It seems to me that a simple answer to this issue would be to offer the option to toggle whether or not you want Reaper to "auto-arrange" the fx on the mixer's insert slots, but allow the FX edit window to retain it's current behavior. Then you can leave slots open in the mixer, park fx exactly where you want them, and reserve a few at the bottom to function as "post" fx at the end of a chain that might be frequently modified. The FX edit window would simply continue to display them in the auto-arrange top-to-bottom order it always does.
Would this be an easy option to implement?
Last edited by Mr. Green; 05-10-2017 at 01:36 PM.
|
|
|
09-15-2017, 09:39 PM
|
#15
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
Posts: 183
|
+1 . . . This.
__________________
Switched to Reaper on 19FEB17 after a decade+ on Logic Pro.
|
|
|
10-29-2020, 07:58 AM
|
#16
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Jun 2019
Posts: 6
|
Has this been finally adressed in Reaper 6.x ? Or is it at least in the pipeline ? Can't find a mention about it in the changelog...
We desperately need this !!! It's been requested since 2014... Coming from Pro Tools, Cubase or Logic feels like hell in Reaper on that very topic (ability to disable fx auto arrange so that you can place your inserts where you want, leaving gaps/empty slots between fx inserts, so that you can have all your EQs on the same row for ex.).
Automatically rearranging inserts by default is a major annoyance for most of us. Please consider fixing this, such ergonomic issues are important workflow killers, don't do justice to Reaper and make people miss Logic or Protools at some point. Very sad...
|
|
|
11-01-2020, 09:53 AM
|
#17
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Jan 2020
Posts: 1,927
|
I also yearn for this, but I don't expect it to happen. There doesn't seem to be enough desire for it among the userbase.
By default, REAPER doesn't seem to differentiate between the plugin slots, which is why they automatically move. In other words, in REAPER's eyes there isn't an "FX slot 1," "FX slot 2," etc., just a single FX chain that works like a multi-layered cake.
There are, however, SWS actions that reference specific FX slots, for example "SWS/S&M: Toggle FX 1 bypass for selected tracks." So it is possible to differentiate them somehow.
|
|
|
11-01-2020, 06:19 PM
|
#18
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Oblivion
Posts: 10,255
|
I think it will be addressed. I remember something in the recent changelogs that I interpreted as being a prep for such a feature.
But I could be wrong...
|
|
|
11-10-2020, 04:55 AM
|
#19
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Jun 2019
Posts: 6
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by foxAsteria
I think it will be addressed. I remember something in the recent changelogs that I interpreted as being a prep for such a feature.
But I could be wrong...
|
I really do hope so. Ableton Live has the exact same issue and, not surprisingly, most pros that create on ableton do their mixdowns in logic or pro tools for that exact same reason : Having 30-35 tracks to mix in front of you with ssl eqs randomly disposed all over the place is just plain inconvenient.
I don't get it, straight from the home page, reaper claims loud and proud that it's different, that they're listening to their users contrary to other manufacturers. Well, not here. Again, this is requested since 2014. This is a usage issue, a serious one. Devs please listen...
How else can I put it to have it solved : take a look at a top notch plugin company like Acoustica. They use Reaper for a reason : unrivalled performance to handle CPU heavy analog modeled plugins. Now if Reaper is the best, why isn't there a single waves or UAD video where the instructor is using it as its preferred DAW ? Usability. This is why they all use pro tools, cubase or logic. Sad to see Reaper doesn't make it for the real pros just for little usability annoyances like this which frankly don't seem very hard to implement...
|
|
|
11-10-2020, 12:28 PM
|
#20
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 3,978
|
^^^^ charras23, try to insert 50 or more insert plugins on a single track in ProTools (with its fixed insert slots)
|
|
|
11-10-2020, 12:39 PM
|
#21
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Jan 2020
Posts: 1,927
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by akademie
^^^^ charras23, try to insert 50 or more insert plugins on a single track in ProTools (with its fixed insert slots)
|
I highly doubt the average user needs anywhere near 50 plugins on a single track...
|
|
|
11-10-2020, 01:13 PM
|
#22
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 3,978
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by valy
I highly doubt the average user needs anywhere near 50 plugins on a single track...
|
I do, sound design, all synthesized sounds with lots of generators, filters, amplifiers etc each.
But to be fair, let's add 11 plugins on Pro Tools track, better that way now?
|
|
|
11-10-2020, 01:16 PM
|
#23
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Jan 2020
Posts: 1,927
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by akademie
I do, sound design, all synthesized sounds with lots of generators, filters, amplifiers etc each.
But to be fair, let's add 11 plugins on Pro Tools track, better that way now?
|
No problem. I put ten on the audio track then bus it to an aux and put the 11th on there.
|
|
|
11-10-2020, 01:19 PM
|
#24
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Jun 2019
Posts: 6
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by valy
I highly doubt the average user needs anywhere near 50 plugins on a single track...
|
Sorry for being unclear. I mean when having the console opened full screen or in the docker. You will typically insert different plugins on a kick track and on a snare or hihat track for instance. And past those treatments, you want to end up with pretty much every single track going through its own ssl eq or waves NLS or whatever, like if it was going through a real hardware console. Depending on the number of plugs on each track, it is impossible to have all ssl eqs on the same (logical) horizontal row. Extend to each track in a (reasonable) mix session with 30-35 tracks properly grouped in drums, basses, sfx, leads, pads, vocals etc. then it becomes a real pain, real fast, for the eyes.
Ideally, when using or preparing a mix template, you would want to save the last insert row for positioning ssl eqs. Same goes at the very beginning of the chain where you typically want a gain plugin to properly take care of you gain staging upfront, giving you required headroom and proper level to enter analog modeled plugins, followed or preceded by a clip plugin. Rows 1 and 2 for those. Then everything in between up to taste, but again it's probably easier if all your saturation/distortion plugins end up on the same horizontal row.
Probably valid for sends too... less critical though as you typically have way less number of sends to take care of compared to plugins.
Clearer ?
|
|
|
11-10-2020, 01:21 PM
|
#25
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Jan 2020
Posts: 1,927
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by charras23
Sorry for being unclear. I mean when having the console opened full screen or in the docker. You will typically insert different plugins on a kick track and on a snare or hihat track for instance. And past those treatments, you want to end up with pretty much every single track going through its own ssl eq or waves NLS or whatever, like if it was going through a real hardware console. Depending on the number of plugs on each track, it is impossible to have all ssl eqs on the same (logical) horizontal row. Extend to each track in a (reasonable) mix session with 30-35 tracks properly grouped in drums, basses, sfx, leads, pads, vocals etc. then it becomes a real pain, real fast, for the eyes.
Ideally, when using or preparing a mix template, you would want to save the last insert row for positioning ssl eqs. Same goes at the very beginning of the chain where you typically want a gain plugin to properly take care of you gain staging upfront, giving you required headroom and proper level to enter analog modeled plugins, followed or preceded by a clip plugin. Rows 1 and 2 for those. Then everything in between up to taste, but again it's probably easier if all your saturation/distortion plugins end up on the same horizontal row.
Probably valid for sends too... less critical though as you typically have way less number of sends to take care of compared to plugins.
Clearer ?
|
I was responding to akademie and his use case, sorry.
I'm advocating for defined plugin slots, same as you.
|
|
|
11-10-2020, 02:36 PM
|
#26
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 3,978
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by valy
I was responding to akademie and his use case, sorry.
I'm advocating for defined plugin slots, same as you.
|
That's legit of course, each to his/her own.
I'm just advocating for not loosing freedom. (And any additional solution that will add direct addressing of "unlimited" slots, e.g. selection of visibility and/or order of actual plugins of FXchain in mixer, would be useful, no doubt).
|
|
|
11-10-2020, 07:27 PM
|
#27
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Jan 2020
Posts: 1,927
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by akademie
That's legit of course, each to his/her own.
I'm just advocating for not loosing freedom. (And any additional solution that will add direct addressing of "unlimited" slots, e.g. selection of visibility and/or order of actual plugins of FXchain in mixer, would be useful, no doubt).
|
Agreed, I don't want to gain functionality at the expense of harming other people's workflows.
Honestly, I've more or less gotten used to not being able to put FX exactly where I want them in REAPER. But, I do think that doing so would be an essential precursor to being able to link FX parameters across tracks in a group.
Without knowing how REAPER works behind the scenes, though, maybe that assumption is unfounded.
|
|
|
11-11-2020, 08:08 AM
|
#28
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Jun 2019
Posts: 6
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by akademie
That's legit of course, each to his/her own.
I'm just advocating for not loosing freedom. (And any additional solution that will add direct addressing of "unlimited" slots, e.g. selection of visibility and/or order of actual plugins of FXchain in mixer, would be useful, no doubt).
|
Well, that could be a pref, so that you decide if you want to keep the current behavior or opt for fixed insert slots... this way uou don't loose the freedom to make a mess ;-)
|
|
|
11-11-2020, 08:19 AM
|
#29
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Jun 2019
Posts: 6
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by valy
Agreed, I don't want to gain functionality at the expense of harming other people's workflows.
Honestly, I've more or less gotten used to not being able to put FX exactly where I want them in REAPER. But, I do think that doing so would be an essential precursor to being able to link FX parameters across tracks in a group.
Without knowing how REAPER works behind the scenes, though, maybe that assumption is unfounded.
|
How Reaper works behind the scenes ? Who cares really ?! This is called "implementation details" in software jargon, and no end user needs to know about it in order to use the product.
We're talking basic reorg here, not implementing spectral editing. Honestly, I'm 52 w/ nearly 30 years of software development behind me. No, it doesn't seem like anything cutting edge or requiring extensive research, maybe a bit of reverse engineering, that's all. I could be wrong and missing something of course, but frankly it seems to me more like an overlooked design decision... And I reckon that it is mostly important to mix engineers, but maybe not so for song creation/arrangement.
|
|
|
11-11-2020, 08:24 AM
|
#30
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 3,978
|
^^^^ sorry, but that's unfounded rant :/
|
|
|
11-11-2020, 06:06 PM
|
#31
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Jan 2020
Posts: 1,927
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by charras23
How Reaper works behind the scenes ? Who cares really ?!
|
I'd imagine the people coding it care quite a deal
|
|
|
11-16-2020, 08:17 AM
|
#32
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Jun 2019
Posts: 6
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by valy
I'd imagine the people coding it care quite a deal
|
This is not what I meant. Of course Reaper's developers care a lot about their code, Reaper has the best performance and stability overall. And the best bugfix rate. Very rare and admirable philosophy. I'm just saying that end-users shouldn't have to care about implementation details that's all : when you buy a car, provided you received proper instruction and got your driver licence, you can drive. Being a mechanics certainly helps under certain circumstances, namely maintenance, but is in no way a requirement to simply drive a car...
|
|
|
11-16-2020, 09:27 AM
|
#33
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Jun 2019
Posts: 2,872
|
I also do sounddesign and would benefit from both unlimited and fixed slots.
Unlimited slots because chains can become very long and fixed slots for things like first adding a distortion on slot 2 and see how it sounds and afterwards maybe add an EQ to slot 1 to boost some frequencies into it, without having to plan this before or re-order plugins. Or plugins that should always be at the bottom of a chain.
So I think we should best think about a way to integrate both a large/unlimited number of slots and fixed slots.
Maybe have a preference to default new tracks to "fixed slots" or "unlimited slots" and have a number box beneath where you can specify how many slots you want if fixed slots is enabled?
So if you activate this option and specify "50" all new tracks will have 50 slots.
In addition to this have a per track option that overrides this preference. For example you have 10 fixed slots enabled and on a specific track you need more or want unlimited slots then you can turn the default off for that track and have as many slots as you want.
|
|
|
11-16-2020, 10:53 AM
|
#34
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Oct 2019
Posts: 12
|
Thanks for the advice and for the explanation.
SHAREit MX Player
Last edited by sneazzy95; 08-18-2021 at 07:11 PM.
|
|
|
Thread Tools |
|
Display Modes |
Linear Mode
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:56 AM.
|